CHAPTER 3 .- Types Interpretation of Contracts.
3.1 .- Definition of the word interpretation.
The word in our language interpretation has its origin in the linguistic history which interpretatio derived from Latin, meaning in English corresponds to the action and effect to interpret. Following
optics and as we are concerned most doctrinaire, the contract interpretation is generally classified as:
3.2 .- Authentic Interpretation:
those who perform it and emanates from the parties themselves who held an contract, arises from his words and his deeds, in which the contractors conclude agree on a business establishment or determination of terms, meanings, values \u200b\u200band purposes that are intended to establish the interpretation of a previous contract, displacing the need to interpret the previous contract as a direct object.
3.3 .- The Interpretation of Doctrine:
As its name implies, is one that is issued by lawyers with moral force, scientific, and that our duty is generally used by judges to influence their decisions, being equivalent to a prediction of what they can fail if the case goes to his knowledge
In turn, this classification is subdivided by several authors in declarative extensive or restrictive.
declarative interpretation is that which arises directly from the terms of the contract, the average broad interpretation when the contract has said unless the parties set out to do and the restrictive interpretation is when all is said more than parties intended to conduct.
Our legal reality, is most often used by judges to the study of a question concerning the interpretation of contracts, and later base their judgments and thus make judicial interpretation.
3.4 .- The Judicial Interpretation:
is ultimately the judges check or courts, when a controversial issue is brought before them. Is the one that puts an end to an issue that is discussed in judicial, being in fact the last performers taking the political system of our reality, and logically compelling those to take the appropriate tools for a correct interpretation of contract, without prejudice to the claims of contractors and the legal nature of the business object decision.
This classification of interpretations, is the effect of which would establish the scope of the interpretive process taking into account one of those, because it is crucial to the interpretation to be placed first one of these classes, and later from the other elements that have standards or guidelines for interpreting and interpretive principles, and with this, try to do a better job of contractual interpretation
3.5 .- Recipient of
Interpretation Within the task of interpretation of a contract, there is also the problem of establishing who is the recipient of the same, the parties entered into an agreement or the judge. Most authors state that the recipient is the judge, because ultimately always correspond to a person with judicial power to rule on the contractual intent of the contracting parties.
Planiol
notes in this respect: there is no doubt that ultimately the last word to the judge, but this is not sufficient to say that the judge is the sole recipient of this activity. As can be seen with the views of that author should be limited only the task of interpretation to the judge, but others may be involved, which ultimately would be the contracting parties themselves, to be stakeholders in a conflict.
The rules of interpretation, in general, and as noted Planiol, are addressed to those who are obliged to observe and therefore also to the contracting parties, because they can previously be interpretive guidelines to account more accurately then make a legal transaction.
According to others and among them Messineo, provides that the rules are directed primarily to the parties, informing them how they should solve their differences in interpretation of the contract and that only in the event that their conflict reaches the courts, would also addressed the judge.
Given the disparity of views in relation to whom the interpretation of contracts, we must understand that these rules are aimed primarily no doubt the judge.
Nothing prevents the parties from the study of interpretative rules before agreeing a business legal contract and thereby determine which way a judge will eventually decide a dispute, because in our particular case the interpretative rules are embedded in the Civil Code.
continued on next post ....
3.1 .- Definition of the word interpretation.
The word in our language interpretation has its origin in the linguistic history which interpretatio derived from Latin, meaning in English corresponds to the action and effect to interpret. Following
optics and as we are concerned most doctrinaire, the contract interpretation is generally classified as:
3.2 .- Authentic Interpretation:
those who perform it and emanates from the parties themselves who held an contract, arises from his words and his deeds, in which the contractors conclude agree on a business establishment or determination of terms, meanings, values \u200b\u200band purposes that are intended to establish the interpretation of a previous contract, displacing the need to interpret the previous contract as a direct object.
3.3 .- The Interpretation of Doctrine:
As its name implies, is one that is issued by lawyers with moral force, scientific, and that our duty is generally used by judges to influence their decisions, being equivalent to a prediction of what they can fail if the case goes to his knowledge
In turn, this classification is subdivided by several authors in declarative extensive or restrictive.
declarative interpretation is that which arises directly from the terms of the contract, the average broad interpretation when the contract has said unless the parties set out to do and the restrictive interpretation is when all is said more than parties intended to conduct.
Our legal reality, is most often used by judges to the study of a question concerning the interpretation of contracts, and later base their judgments and thus make judicial interpretation.
3.4 .- The Judicial Interpretation:
is ultimately the judges check or courts, when a controversial issue is brought before them. Is the one that puts an end to an issue that is discussed in judicial, being in fact the last performers taking the political system of our reality, and logically compelling those to take the appropriate tools for a correct interpretation of contract, without prejudice to the claims of contractors and the legal nature of the business object decision.
This classification of interpretations, is the effect of which would establish the scope of the interpretive process taking into account one of those, because it is crucial to the interpretation to be placed first one of these classes, and later from the other elements that have standards or guidelines for interpreting and interpretive principles, and with this, try to do a better job of contractual interpretation
3.5 .- Recipient of
Interpretation Within the task of interpretation of a contract, there is also the problem of establishing who is the recipient of the same, the parties entered into an agreement or the judge. Most authors state that the recipient is the judge, because ultimately always correspond to a person with judicial power to rule on the contractual intent of the contracting parties.
Planiol
notes in this respect: there is no doubt that ultimately the last word to the judge, but this is not sufficient to say that the judge is the sole recipient of this activity. As can be seen with the views of that author should be limited only the task of interpretation to the judge, but others may be involved, which ultimately would be the contracting parties themselves, to be stakeholders in a conflict.
The rules of interpretation, in general, and as noted Planiol, are addressed to those who are obliged to observe and therefore also to the contracting parties, because they can previously be interpretive guidelines to account more accurately then make a legal transaction.
According to others and among them Messineo, provides that the rules are directed primarily to the parties, informing them how they should solve their differences in interpretation of the contract and that only in the event that their conflict reaches the courts, would also addressed the judge.
Given the disparity of views in relation to whom the interpretation of contracts, we must understand that these rules are aimed primarily no doubt the judge.
Nothing prevents the parties from the study of interpretative rules before agreeing a business legal contract and thereby determine which way a judge will eventually decide a dispute, because in our particular case the interpretative rules are embedded in the Civil Code.
continued on next post ....
0 comments:
Post a Comment